Your argument is, ‘it can’t be art - a child can do it.’
Can children make art? Like, the way you understand art gets made. If a kid picking up Stable Diffusion in a week proves it’s never art, what is the impact of a child who paints real good after very little practice?
Is that my argument? Cool! I guess my work is done here. You go ahead and debate the point you think I’m making. It’ll save me a whole lot of time, and you get to pretend to win!
A talented child artist wouldn’t use AI.
That was not the question.
The question is irrelevant. If the child has talent, they wouldn’t use AI. Moot point.
No.
Your argument is, ‘it can’t be art - a child can do it.’
Can children make art? Like, the way you understand art gets made. If a kid picking up Stable Diffusion in a week proves it’s never art, what is the impact of a child who paints real good after very little practice?
Is that my argument? Cool! I guess my work is done here. You go ahead and debate the point you think I’m making. It’ll save me a whole lot of time, and you get to pretend to win!
We both get something out of it!
What the fuck are you saying, if not that?
If you can’t be corrected when you misread someone else’s argument you’re just saying words recreationally.
You seem fine to fill in all the blanks you clearly can’t understand, I’d rather you just have this conversation all on your own.
I have faith in you!
(If you run into trouble, have AI do it for you).
YOU misread MY argument, and now - being asked to please explain what you’re posturing about - you’re posturing harder.
Do you care about this topic or are you just trolling?
I care about the topic. I don’t care about your take on it. I said what I intended to say, I’m not here to debate it.
AI is not art. And people who use it are not artists. I don’t care that it’s complicated to you. It’s not art. Period.
End of story.
If you want to argue, please continue rewriting my point and arguing against that, but leave me out of it.