Since you clearly just ignores the totality of my arguments and just reduces them to the simplest forms there’s is no reason for me to continue this discussion, this is gonna be my final reply.

I put a lot of effort to try and understand your position, I’m sorry you feel that I’m ignoring your argument. I don’t think I’m reducing anything here, I’m simply asking you what the tangible actions you support based on the logic of your argument. I find your statements to be contradictory in nature, and I’ve simply asked you to clarify your position here.

You keep ignoring what I’m saying and just reducing it to “should use”, “should not use”.

I’m not ignoring what you’re saying, I’ve directly engaged with your argument. However, I do want to understand what tangible actions you support and you’ve given contradictory statements in that regard.

I have repeated this statement multiple times in this thread, read what I’m saying, I’m not gonna repeat myself further.

I have read what you’re saying, and my point remains unaddressed. If this tech is not developed in the open and not used outside corporate environment, then it will be developed and used solely by corporations. When I bring this up, you say that you’re not against the use of this tech, but then you immediately say that it should not be used until certain conditions are met. I do not understand how these conditions could possibly be met if this tech is not developed in the open.

Doesn’t make it any less art, but is not made by the person that prompted it, it is made by the machine and it’s at best curated by the human. It is a tool, it is art, it is not made by user, the drawing skill is not learned, but other skills are.

So, you agree that this is a distinct art form just like photography. Great!

I have never seen this argument before in my life and I don’t understand what it accomplishes in separating differing types of art made.

🤷

I already argued that genAI is not human made, and you’re arguing that AI generated art therefore is not art because only humans can make art.

What I actually argued was that gen AI is a tool humans use to make art, but at this point it’s clear that you have no intention of actually engaging with what I say.

You’re not engaging with my arguments in good faith.

I did my best to engage your arguments, and I was met with hostility and verbal abuse in response.

I will repeat yet again, just in case you missed it somehow: a genAI user does not know how to draw, no matter how complex is the image generated, they have a different set of skills.

And I’ve repeatedly addressed this very point in my replies to you pointing out that you conflate the technical skill of being able to draw with artistic expression.

Except you didn’t.

People reading this thread can certainly make up their own mind on that. I very explicitly explained what I think effective ways to organize are.

I will continue to be unwaveringly on the side of the artists and in how collectives like UNIDAD and Soberana are fighting in this issue, not denying the tech, but heavily fighting against it on it’s current form.

Nowhere have I argued against this position, and all I tried to explain to you here is that messaging and tactics could be improved. You took this as a personal attack.

I’m sorry this turned out to be a pointless discussion where we could not constructively engage in good faith. I’ve genuinely tried.