I get the idea, but I don't think there's any real benefit in intentionally muddying the waters further on this stuff. I'm not personally a fan of pouring more fuel on the dumpster fire, and there's been a lot of deep discussions about all of this already. There's not much room for "good faith" discussion in this shit as it is.
Besides aesthetic, I think the heart of the issue is that those generative AI tools were trained on art made by humans, generally without the consent or payment of said humans. Now you've got an interaction where you want art, you get it from a machine made by an AI company that is effectively ripping off artists, and nowhere in this loop are the artists that made this art generating machine possible.
I get the idea, but I don't think there's any real benefit in intentionally muddying the waters further on this stuff. I'm not personally a fan of pouring more fuel on the dumpster fire, and there's been a lot of deep discussions about all of this already. There's not much room for "good faith" discussion in this shit as it is.
Besides aesthetic, I think the heart of the issue is that those generative AI tools were trained on art made by humans, generally without the consent or payment of said humans. Now you've got an interaction where you want art, you get it from a machine made by an AI company that is effectively ripping off artists, and nowhere in this loop are the artists that made this art generating machine possible.
Ah so you weren't actually asking a question, just looking to debate.